Acceptance of animal research in our science community.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Bergmeister K
PROVIDER: S-EPMC4866631 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Animal welfare science features interdisciplinary and collaborative working across fields, spanning behavioural ecology, psychology, veterinary sciences, economics, and fundamental biology. However, education research is not yet prevalent within the animal welfare literature. In a Web of Science topic search there were 188 papers which specifically discussed or explored how to teach animal welfare from 1978 to 2017. Of these, only 34% (n = 61) specifically focused on instructional design or pedagogical research, and these were predominantly within veterinary education (57%). Despite this, the literature is in broad agreement that animal welfare education is an important topic that should be done well. Within the UK, there were a possible 586 animal-related courses within Universities College Admissions Service database for potential students to choose from, highlighting the significance of robust and considered educational practice. The current gaps identified in the literature were discussion of hidden curriculums outside of veterinary degrees, animal-centered education, the blueprinting of assessment, and authentic assessment. Therefore, this review proposes that animal welfare scientists interested in education consider discipline based educational research (DBER) practices, and engage more fully with the educational research literature. A key component of DBER is the recognition that specialist knowledge needs to be taught by specialists, and so it is important that animal welfare scientists begin to access educational research too.
| S-EPMC6997439 | biostudies-literature
Project description:There is long-standing scientific interest in understanding purposeful movement by animals and humans. Traditionally, collecting data on individual moving entities was difficult and time-consuming, limiting scientific progress. The growth of location-aware and other geospatial technologies for capturing, managing and analyzing moving objects data are shattering these limitations, leading to revolutions in animal movement ecology and human mobility science. Despite parallel transitions towards massive individual-level data collected automatically via sensors, there is little scientific cross-fertilization across the animal and human divide. There are potential synergies from converging these separate domains towards an integrated science of movement. This paper discusses the data-driven revolutions in the animal movement ecology and human mobility science, their contrasting worldviews and, as examples of complementarity, transdisciplinary questions that span both fields. We also identify research challenges that should be met to develop an integrated science of movement trajectories.
| S-EPMC7531019 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The transfer of new discoveries into both clinical practice and the wider community calls for reliance on interdisciplinary translational teams that include researchers with different areas of expertise, representatives of health care systems and community organizations, and patients. Engaging new stakeholders in research, however, calls for a reconsideration or expansion of the meaning of ethics in translational research. We explored expert opinion on the applicability of ethical principles commonly practiced in community-engaged research (CEnR) to translational research. To do so, we conducted 2 online, modified-Delphi panels with 63 expert stakeholders who iteratively rated and discussed 9 ethical principles commonly used in CEnR in terms of their importance and feasibility for use in translational research. The RAND/UCLA appropriateness method was used to analyze the data and determine agreement and disagreement among participating experts. Both panels agreed that ethical translational research should be "grounded in trust." Although the academic panel endorsed "culturally appropriate" and "forthcoming with community about study risks and benefits," the mixed academic-community panel endorsed "scientifically valid" and "ready to involve community in interpretation and dissemination" as important and feasible principles of ethical translational research. These findings suggest that in addition to protecting human subjects, contemporary translational science models need to account for the interests of, and owe ethical obligations to, members of the investigative team and the community at large.
| S-EPMC4833614 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:The institutions that comprise the Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) consortium and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences continue to explore and develop community-engaged research strategies and to study the role of community academic partnerships in advancing the science of community engagement. OBJECTIVES:To explore CTSA institutions in relation to an Institute of Medicine recommendation that community engagement occur in all stages of translational research and be defined and evaluated consistently. METHODS:A sequential multimethods study starting with an online pilot survey followed by survey respondents and site informant interviews. A revised survey was sent to the community engagement and evaluation leads at each CTSA institution, requesting a single institutional response about the definitions, indicators, and metrics of community engagement and community-engaged research. RESULTS:A plurality of CTSA institutions selected the definition of community engagement from the Principles of Community Engagement. Although claiming unique institutional priorities create barriers to developing shared metrics, responses indicate an overall lack of attention to the development and deployment of metrics to assess community engagement in and contributions to research. CONCLUSIONS:Although definitions of community engagement differ among CTSAs, there seem to be more similarities than differences in the indicators and measures tracked and reported on across all definitions, perhaps owing to commonalities among program infrastructures and goals. Metrics will likely need to be specific to translational research stages. The assessment of community engagement within translational science will require increased institutional commitment.
| S-EPMC6237095 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Partnered research may help bridge the gap between research and practice. Community-based participatory research (CBPR) supports collaboration between scientific researchers and community members that is designed to improve capacity, enhance trust, and address health disparities. Systems science aims to understand the complex ways human-ecological coupled systems interact and apply knowledge to management practices. Although CBPR and systems science display complementary principles, only a few articles describe synergies between these 2 approaches. In this article, we explore opportunities to utilize concepts from systems science to understand the development, evolution, and sustainability of 1 CBPR partnership: The Community Health Advocacy and Research Alliance (CHARA). Systems science tools may help CHARA and other CBPR partnerships sustain their core identities while co-evolving in conjunction with individual members, community priorities, and a changing healthcare landscape. Our goal is to highlight CHARA as a case for applying the complementary approaches of CBPR and systems science to (1) improve academic/community partnership functioning and sustainability, (2) ensure that research addresses the priorities and needs of end users, and (3) support more timely application of scientific discoveries into routine practice.
| S-EPMC6390389 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAnimal research (AR) findings often do not translate to humans; one potential reason is the poor methodological quality of AR. We aimed to determine this quality of AR reported in critical care journals.MethodsAll AR published from January to June 2012 in three high-impact critical care journals were reviewed. A case report form and instruction manual with clear definitions were created, based on published recommendations, including the ARRIVE guidelines. Data were analyzed with descriptive statistics.ResultsSeventy-seven AR publications were reviewed. Our primary outcome (animal strain, sex, and weight or age described) was reported in 52 (68%; 95% confidence interval, 56% to 77%). Of the 77 publications, 47 (61%) reported randomization; of these, 3 (6%) reported allocation concealment, and 1 (2%) the randomization procedure. Of the 77 publications, 31 (40%) reported some type of blinding; of these, disease induction (2, 7%), intervention (7, 23%), and/or subjective outcomes (17, 55%) were blinded. A sample size calculation was reported in 4/77 (5%). Animal numbers were missing in the Methods section in 16 (21%) publications; when stated, the median was 32 (range 6 to 320; interquartile range, 21 to 70). Extra animals used were mentioned in the Results section in 31 (40%) publications; this number was unclear in 23 (74%), and >100 for 12 (16%). When reporting most outcomes, numbers with denominators were given in 35 (45%), with no unaccounted numbers in 24 (31%), and no animals excluded from analysis in 20 (26%). Most (49, 64%) studies reported >40, and another 19 (25%) reported 21 to 40 statistical comparisons. Internal validity limitations were discussed in 7 (9%), and external validity (to humans) discussed in 71 (92%), most with no (30, 42%) or only a vague (9, 13%) limitation to this external validity mentioned.ConclusionsThe reported methodological quality of AR was poor. Unless the quality of AR significantly improves, the practice may be in serious jeopardy of losing public support.
| S-EPMC4126494 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Improving laboratory animal science and welfare requires both new scientific research and insights from research in the humanities and social sciences. Whilst scientific research provides evidence to replace, reduce and refine procedures involving laboratory animals (the '3Rs'), work in the humanities and social sciences can help understand the social, economic and cultural processes that enhance or impede humane ways of knowing and working with laboratory animals. However, communication across these disciplinary perspectives is currently limited, and they design research programmes, generate results, engage users, and seek to influence policy in different ways. To facilitate dialogue and future research at this interface, we convened an interdisciplinary group of 45 life scientists, social scientists, humanities scholars, non-governmental organisations and policy-makers to generate a collaborative research agenda. This drew on methods employed by other agenda-setting exercises in science policy, using a collaborative and deliberative approach for the identification of research priorities. Participants were recruited from across the community, invited to submit research questions and vote on their priorities. They then met at an interactive workshop in the UK, discussed all 136 questions submitted, and collectively defined the 30 most important issues for the group. The output is a collaborative future agenda for research in the humanities and social sciences on laboratory animal science and welfare. The questions indicate a demand for new research in the humanities and social sciences to inform emerging discussions and priorities on the governance and practice of laboratory animal research, including on issues around: international harmonisation, openness and public engagement, 'cultures of care', harm-benefit analysis and the future of the 3Rs. The process outlined below underlines the value of interdisciplinary exchange for improving communication across different research cultures and identifies ways of enhancing the effectiveness of future research at the interface between the humanities, social sciences, science and science policy.
| S-EPMC4948886 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThis article investigates the research problem of digital solutions to overcome the pandemic, more closely examining the limited effectiveness and scope of the governmental COVID-19 tracing apps, using the German COVID-19 tracing app (Corona-Warn-App) as an example. A well-designed and effective instrument in the technological toolbox is of utmost importance to overcome the pandemic.MethodA multi-methodological design science research approach was applied. In three development and evaluation cycles, we presented, prototyped, and tested user-centered ideas of functional and design improvement. The applied procedure contains (1) a survey featuring 1993 participants from Germany for evaluating the current app, (2) a gathering of recommendations from epidemiologists and from a focus group discussion with IT and health experts identifying relevant functional requirements, and (3) an online survey combined with testing our prototype with 53 participants to evaluate the enhanced tracing app.ResultsThis contribution presents 14 identified issues of the German COVID-19 tracing app, six meta-requirements, and three design principles for COVID-19 tracing apps and future pandemic apps (e.g., more user involvement and transparency). Using an interactive prototype, this study presents an extended pandemic app, containing 13 potential front-end (i.e., information on the regional infection situation, education and health literacy, crowd and event notification) and six potential back-end functional requirements (i.e., ongoing modification of risk score calculation, indoor versus outdoor). In addition, a user story approach for the COVID-19 tracing app was derived from the findings, supporting a holistic development approach.ConclusionThroughout this study, practical relevant findings can be directly transferred to the German and other international COVID-19 tracing applications. Moreover, we apply our findings to crisis management theory-particularly pandemic-related apps-and derive interdisciplinary learnings. It might be recommendable for the involved decision-makers and stakeholders to forego classic application management and switch to using an agile setup, which allows for a more flexible reaction to upcoming changes. It is even more important for governments to have a well-established, flexible, design-oriented process for creating and adapting technology to handle a crisis, as this pandemic will not be the last one.
| S-EPMC8350273 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Our current understanding of mesothelioma in terms of disease induction, development, and treatment is underpinned by decades of basic laboratory science. In this chapter, we discuss the tools that have been developed to aid our understanding of mesothelioma such as cell lines and animal models. We then go on to detail the current use and understanding of conventional therapies for mesothelioma, e.g. chemotherapy, surgery, and radiotherapy, plus their mechanisms of action, and why they may be ineffective. Finally, we discuss a range of newer treatments that are either undergoing clinical trials or are still in the earlier stages of preclinical investigation. These include a growing number of immunotherapies (e.g. checkpoint inhibitors), plus targeted therapies, the search for clinical biomarkers to predict whether patients with mesothelioma might respond to particular treatments, and combined therapies where conventional treatments may be added to newer drugs. The strategy of repositioning existing drugs, approved for other diseases, to treat mesothelioma is also discussed.
| S-EPMC7119960 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ISSUES:Alcohol companies have recently invested large sums of money in answering research questions to which they have clear vested interests in the outcomes. There have been extensive concerns about corporate influence on public health sciences, following the experience with the tobacco industry. APPROACH:This systematic review aims to investigate the perspectives of researchers on the activities of alcohol industry actors in relation to science, in order to guide future research. All data published in peer-reviewed journals (including commentaries, opinion pieces, editorials and letters as well as research reports) were eligible for inclusion. This analysis focuses on the manifest rather than latent content of the articulated views, and accordingly adopts a thematic analysis using an inductive approach to the generation of themes. KEY FINDINGS:There are serious concerns identified in three main areas, principally defined by where the impacts of industry scientific activities occur; on evidence informed policy making (instrumental uses of research by industry actors), on the content of the scientific evidence base itself (industry funding as a source of bias); and on the processes of undertaking research (transgressions of basic scientific norms). There are also opposing views which provide a useful critique. The evidence-base on the validity of all concerns has been slow to develop. IMPLICATIONS:The concerns are extensive, longstanding and unresolved and high quality investigations are needed. CONCLUSION:This study informs the detailed content of the research needed to address the concerns identified here.
| S-EPMC6055701 | biostudies-literature